New Rule Curbs 'Nationwide Injunctions': Federal Lawsuits Must Now Be Filed in Multi-Judge Districts

The “End Judge Shopping Act” is short, but it packs a punch for anyone who might ever need to challenge a federal rule or law in court. This bill doesn't change what the government can do, but it changes where you can sue them if you want to stop a rule from being enforced across the entire country. Specifically, Section 2 amends U.S. Code Title 28, Chapter 87, to mandate that any civil lawsuit seeking a nationwide injunction—an order that stops enforcement of a federal rule or law everywhere—must be filed in a division of a judicial district that has at least two active judges assigned to it.

The Venue Restriction: Fewer Courthouses, Fewer Options

Think of this as closing down the small, local branches of the federal court system for high-stakes cases. Currently, if a group wants to challenge a federal regulation—say, a new environmental rule or a change to healthcare coverage—they can sometimes file the suit in a judicial district with only one active judge. This practice, often called “judge shopping,” allows plaintiffs to target courts known for rulings favorable to their cause. This bill aims to stop that by forcing these major cases into larger, multi-judge districts. For example, if a group in rural Montana wants to challenge a new federal policy, they might no longer be able to file in their local single-judge district, forcing them to travel to a larger city hundreds of miles away where the multi-judge court is located.

What This Means for Everyday Challenges

For most people, the idea of a “nationwide injunction” sounds like something only lawyers worry about. But these injunctions are how major federal policies—like vaccine mandates, immigration rules, or new student loan policies—get paused or overturned instantly across all 50 states. By restricting the venue to multi-judge districts, the Act concentrates the power to issue these critical rulings into fewer locations. While the stated goal is to ensure a broader range of judicial perspectives hear these cases, the practical effect is a limitation on access. If you’re an organization representing small businesses, or a state government challenging an EPA rule, your choice of where to file just got significantly narrower, potentially increasing litigation costs and the time it takes to get to court.

The Trade-Off: Efficiency vs. Access

On one hand, supporters of this kind of change would argue it brings stability and reduces the risk of one judge in a remote location single-handedly halting a major federal policy. It might lead to more thorough initial consideration of the issues since more judges are available to weigh in. On the other hand, this restriction effectively limits the ability of plaintiffs—whether they are individuals, advocacy groups, or even state governments—to choose a convenient or strategic location for filing suit. For those seeking quick relief from a federal action they believe is harmful, being forced to travel to a different, often larger, court system can be a significant burden, potentially delaying the challenge and limiting judicial review for citizens in less populated areas. It’s a procedural change, but one that could quietly shift the balance of power in how federal regulations are challenged.